1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMNI SOUTH HILL, LP, Case No. CV 19-10185-ODW(RAO) 12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO 14 ANDREW KNIGHT, et al., PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Omni South Hill, LP (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action 20 in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Andrew Knight, Carol 21 Aitcheson, and Does 1 to 10 (“Defendants”). Amended First Notice of Motion to 22 Remand to State Court, Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 7 at 11-15. 23 Defendants are allegedly occupants of real property owned by Plaintiff and located 24 in Los Angeles, California. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer 25 action seeking forfeiture of the rental agreement, monetary damages, and 26 reasonable attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 17. 27 /// 28 1 Defendant Knight filed a Notice of Removal on December 2, 2019, invoking 2 the Court’s federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal, Dkt. 3 No. 1 at 1-3. Defendant Knight also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 4 Dkt. No. 3. 5 On December 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion to Remand to State 6 Court and an Amended First Notice of Motion to Remand to State Court. Dkt. Nos. 7 6, 7. 8 II. 9 DISCUSSION 10 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 11 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 12 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

,

,

2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 14 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

,

,

Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 16 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 17

, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an 18 opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, 19 it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting 20 internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to 21 federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. 22 Breeland,

(9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” 23 against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th 24 Cir. 1992). 25 Defendant asserts that this Court has federal question and diversity jurisdiction 26 pursuant to

, 1332, and 1441. Removal at 2-3. Section 1441 27 provides, in relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action 28 in state court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1441(a). Section 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original 2 jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 3 United States.” See id. § 1331. Section 1332 provides that federal “district courts 4 shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy 5 exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” and is between “citizens of different States.” 6 See id. § 1332. 7 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint 8 makes clear that this Court neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction over the 9 instant matter. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the 10 Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. 11 See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx),

4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not 13 arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 14 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 16 where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 17 There is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question jurisdiction 18 exists based on an alleged violation by Plaintiff of the Fair Debt Collection Practice 19 Act. Removal at 2. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal 20 court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the 21 plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the 22 only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

, 107

, 2430,

(1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses 24 to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those 25 defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See

Because 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as 27 artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under

. 28 /// 1 Second, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in 2 || controversy does not exceed the diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. See 28 3 || U.S.C. § 1332(a). The amount in controversy is determined from the complaint itself, 4 || unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is worth a different amount than 5 || that pled in the complaint. Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,

, 81 6 || S.Ct. 1570,

(1961); Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Assoc., 7 |

(9th Cir. 2007). In filing the action, Plaintiff explicitly limited its 8 || demand for damages to “less than $10,000.00.” See Dkt. No. 7 at 13. Because the 9 || amount of damages that Plaintiff seeks appears to be below the jurisdictional 10 || minimum, the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction in this case. 11 III. 12 CONCLUSION 13 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 14 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s request to proceed in forma 16 || pauperis and all other pending motions are DENIED as moot. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 || DATED: _December 13, 2019 ort Lf. OTISD.WRIGHTH 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28